Strict Father vs Nurturant Parent

[Griff]

Back up for a second and explain what you mean by the strict father and nurturant parent frameworks.

Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline — physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones — those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant — and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.
This is George Lakoff's riff. It is an interesting little framework that he carries further other places. The sucky part is that it acknowleges a truth, the left and right agree wholeheartedly on one major assumption. People exist to be parented by the state.

[9th Engineer]

It's not a bad starting point, sets a framework for people to comment on and build.

Well, yeah, the analogy of the government as family is an interesting one, but open to debate.

I view children as born as little savages who have to be taught stuff like not stealing the neighbor kid's toys, don't pull the cat's tail, and life is not all about getting whatever you want just because you want it.

A good parent gives a child the things he'll need to make a go of it in the world. Things like discipline, compassion for others, a good education, and medical care. Its mainly up to the individual what he does with his own life.

But we are members of society as well as being individuals. A strong group of individuals makes for a strong society. That's where enlightened self interest comes in. We try to make sure that ALL our children get a good education, medical care, a proper diet, etc.

Idealy, the parent should provide these things for his child, but last time I looked, the world is far from ideal.

I don't think this means that people "exist to be parented by the state." Helping out a child who is living below the poverty line is a wise investment in the future. Under the right circumstances that child can grow up to be a drug addict or he could grow up to be a teacher. The disabled should be helped to get back on their feet as much as possible - our current system allows the low income disabled to just get by in bitter poverty and does very little toward helping them rehabilitate themselves. The elderly who have worked all their lives deserve a dignified retirement. People who take advantage of assistance given to them in good faith should be punished for bad faith responses.

Its more about the social contract than it is getting a whipping from Dad or spoiled by Mommy.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Its more about the social contract than it is getting a whipping from Dad or spoiled by Mommy.

That was his take as well. To me, the actual effect is that you are whipped by Daddy or spoiled by Mommy. Maybe this is a good argument for the center folks who actually decide who serves in office. Healthy children are raised not by authoritarian or permissive parents but rather by (an) authoritative parent(s). The two major parties are run by their extremists, the good parents are in the middle. I'm still uncomfortable with the analogy, although it is a good one, since I feel the state should be subservient to the individual... we need to parent it.

"The child is the parent of the man." Should society be subservient to the needs of the individual or should the individual be subservient to society?

Human beings evolved to be social animals. There are certain rules of society that EVERYONE has to follow or else the whole thing falls apart. For example, if I knew I could steal a brand new car and get away with it, would I? I don't think I would. But a lot of other people might. If I was starving, would I steal a loaf of bread? Honestly, yes.

A society as a whole decides the things that it will or will not tolerate. We create institutions like law enforcement and government in order to (ideally) create a just society.

I feel that individuals on both the left and right wing have begun to sleep-walk through life. I agree that moderation is the key in almost anything you could name. But so is being involved. People need to care about things besides material goodies. Individuals need to look around their neighborhoods, their towns, their COUNTRY, and give a damn about something besides themselves.

Otherwise, someone is going to step into that vacuum created by society's apathy, and that entity WILL be very much like a parent - a parent none of us is going to like, either.

[9th Engineer]

I'm not quite sure how anyone can come off thinking that kids start out inherently good and are just made better. Whoever thought that up must never have been a parent.

<Insert Lord of the Flies quote here></>

[xoxoxoBruce]

Then who came up with the term "innocents"?

[9th Engineer]

The connection between 'innocent' and 'good' is tenuous at best. I'm not saying they're unrelated, but it would be more accurate to draw a parallel between it and 'naive' or 'unassuming'.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Whoever thought that up must never have been a parent.

You have kids 9th? How many/what age(s)?

[9th Engineer]

None, nor will I be in that position within the comming decade. However that's unnecessary when you've spent enough time talking with parents with young kids and around the kids themselves (knowledge can be gained 2nd hand).

[Flint]

Knowledge can be gained second-hand, but first-hand knowledge can't be gained second-hand.

[9th Engineer]

No, that's a matter of definition. But I don't think that first hand vs second hand knowledge is key in making an observation here.

[Flint]

I'm just using the framework you set up.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Then again, 2nd hand knowledge maybe less bias than parents view.......and certainly less bias than grandparents view.